boosting impact and innovation in higher education€¦ · processes 16 high diversity ... the four...

Boosting Impact and Innovationin Higher Education

The Knowledge Entrepreneur and High DiversityGroups in Universities

Boosting Impact andInnovation in HigherEducation

The Knowledge Entrepreneur andHigh Diversity Groups in Universities

By

Ross Rynehart, PhDImagine Consulting Group International, Australia

United Kingdom � North America � Japan � India � Malaysia � China

Emerald Publishing LimitedHoward House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK

First edition 2018

Copyright r 2018 Ross Rynehart

Reprints and permissions serviceContact: [email protected]

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior writtenpermission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issuedin the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by TheCopyright Clearance Center. No responsibility is accepted for the accuracyof information contained in the text, illustrations or advertisements. Theopinions expressed in these chapters are not necessarily those of the Authoror the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-1-78754-833-6 (Print)ISBN: 978-1-78754-832-9 (Online)ISBN: 978-1-78754-834-3 (Epub)

Certificate Number 1985ISO 14001

ISOQAR certified Management System,awarded to Emerald for adherence to Environmental standard ISO 14001:2004.

http://[email protected]

Contents

List of Tables ix

List of Figures xi

Preface xiii

CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1The Knowledge Entrepreneur 3High Diversity Groups 4The Relationship between the KE Role and HDGs 5The Need for Change in University Cultures 8The Issue of Intelligence 9Academic and Professional Cultures within Universities 10High Diversity versus High Diversity Groups (HDGs) 10Complexity, Diversity and Discourse 12Stacey’s Complex Responsive Processes (CRPs) 13Individual and Group Mind 15Knowledge Entrepreneurs and Complex ResponsiveProcesses 16High Diversity Leadership Groups (HDLGs) 17High Diversity Research Groups (HDRGs) 19Developing KEs: Breaking the Training Mould 21

Part 1 The Knowledge Entrepreneur

CHAPTER 2 The Knowledge Entrepreneur Role 25The Need for the KE Role 26The Knowledge Entrepreneur (KE) Toolkit 28The Four Foundational Elements of the KE Toolkit 31The Eight Mental Models of the KE Toolkit 33

v

CHAPTER 3 The Intra-personal or Self Components ofthe KE Toolkit 35

Self-Awareness 35Mental Model 1. The Myers�Briggs Type Indicator(MBTi) 36Mental Model 2. 5P Feedback 38

Self-Management 43Mental Model 3. Communication Model or Filters 45Mental Model 4. Double Loop Learning (DLL) 47

CHAPTER 4 The Inter-personal or Social Components ofthe KE Toolkit 53

Social Awareness 53Mental Model 5. Three Perceptual Positions 54Mental Model 6. Conversational Patterns 59

Relationship Management 66Mental Model 7. Rapport 67Mental Model 8. Political Landscape 71

CHAPTER 5 The Challenge of Learning 81Learning to Be Competent 81Committing to Practise 83Warning: Awareness in Not the Same as Competence! 84Mastering the KE Toolkit 84

Part 2 High Diversity Groups

CHAPTER 6 Introduction to High Diversity Groups 91Thriving on Diversity 91How Are HDGs Different? 92Seven Defining Characteristics of HDGs 93Cultural Challenges of Establishing HDGs 97

CHAPTER 7 The HDG Process Playlist 101The Six HDG Phases 101Facilitating HDGs 104The Five Types of HDG Processes 106

1. Sense-making Processes 1062. Creative Knowledge Processes 107

vi CONTENTS

3. Decision-making Processes 1084. Group Dynamic Management Processes 1095. Learning Processes 111

Ten Symbolic Practices 114

CHAPTER 8 Two Specific Types of HDGs 1211. High Diversity Leadership Groups (HDLGs) 121

Leadership and Management 122Leadership Groups and High Diversity LeadershipGroups 124

2. High Diversity Research Groups 127Grand Challenges and Wicked Problems 130The Challenge of Establishing HDRGs 131The Importance of Patronage 132Examples of HDRGs 134

Conclusion 137

CHAPTER 9 A Hypothetical Example of a HDG 139Vignette: A University HDLG in Action 140Conclusion 157

CHAPTER 10 How to Establish and DevelopHigh Diversity Groups 159

The Need for a Guiding Coalition (GC) 161The Six Phases of Establishing High Diversity Groups(HDGs) 162

Phase 1 � Casting 162Phase 2 � Engagement 166Phase 3 � Learning and Performing 167Phase 4 � Performing and Learning 172Phase 5 � Performing, Evaluating and Learning 174Phase 6 � Performing and Reporting 175

Conclusion 176

CHAPTER 11 Conclusion � Beyond the Boundaries 179The Need for Leadership, Learning and Change 180Effective Leadership and Assessment of Skills andCulture 182Beyond the Boundaries of HDGs 184Beyond the Boundaries of Universities 186

Contents vii

The Case for More Effective Engagement beyondthe Boundaries 186The Plain Language Challenge 188Aristotle’s Rhetoric 188Political Acts 189A Media Based on ‘Best Knowledge’ 190Into the Political Affray 191Conclusion 192

References 197

Index 201

viii CONTENTS

List of Tables

Chapter 2

Table 1 The Four Foundational Components and theEight Mental Models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Chapter 4

Table 2 Effects of High and Low Use of Five DifferentTypes of Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Table 3 Plotting Actors and Their Power . . . . . . . . . 75

Chapter 5

Table 4 KE Competence Self-Assessment . . . . . . . . . 85

Chapter 7

Table 5 The HDG Process Playlist . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Chapter 8

Table 6 Comparing HDLGs and ‘Normal’ LeadershipGroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

ix

List of Figures

Chapter 1

Figure 1 Boosting Group Performance by IncreasingDiversity and Developing a HDG Culture . . . 6

Chapter 2

Figure 2 The Knowledge Entrepreneur Toolkit . . . . . 29

Figure 3 The Intra-personal and Inter-personalComponents of the Knowledge EntrepreneurRole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Chapter 3

Figure 4 The Communication Model or ‘Filters’. . . . . 46

Figure 5 Double Loop Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Chapter 4

Figure 6 Conversational Pattern Map of a 10-minuteGroup Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Figure 7 Plotting the Political Landscape . . . . . . . . 76

Chapter 5

Figure 8 The Competence Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Chapter 6

Figure 9 Organisational Culture Model . . . . . . . . . 98

Chapter 8

Figure 10 Comparing Leadership and Management . . . 122

xi

Preface

Now, in the latter stages of my career, I am writing abook with a focus on universities. This comes somewhatas a surprise. Earlier in my career, I would not have

envisaged this. However, now that I am spending substantialamounts of time working in universities, it is easy to understandthe reasons for such a focus. Through my consultancy work run-ning university-related experiential leadership development pro-grammes, I have quickly re-affirmed my respect for universities asunique institutions that act as highly ethical guardians of knowl-edge, educators and researchers in a world that is wont toexploit, distort or ignore best knowledge for self-interest. Yet, Ifear that universities are not seen for the full potential that theyhave to offer to our conflicted world. Universities are not seen asthe leaders of the knowledge economy, innovation nor policydebate. In my own country of Australia, universities have beenunder funding pressure for some time and, to their credit, haveresponded with some serious re-organisation in order to remainviable. But they have failed to reimage themselves in the eyes ofthe community and continue to conduct teaching and research inmuch the same way they always have. I believe this is a shame ashaving had the privilege to work with brilliant minds in universi-ties, I am disappointed that potential is not being appreciatedand utilised by society. Universities must take responsibility forthis and recognise that preserving their fine traditions alone is notwhat is needed of them in the world today. Coinciding with myconsultancy work in universities has been the growing promi-nence of far right-wing groups that are managing to influencegovernment policy across the globe with ideologies that pay littledeference to best knowledge.

While it would be relatively easy to goad universities to bemore proactive in stepping up to lead global policy-makingdebates, I believe that first there needs to be some cultural changeand skill development to prepare for such a role. The rolerequires the up-skilling of academics and changes to some aspects

xiii

of university cultures. With that in mind, this book is offered as apractical first step in up-skilling universities to lead more effec-tively in a world that is crying out for wise, intelligent yet innova-tive leadership. Subsequently, this book is a practical guide forthose who work in universities and wish to apply their knowl-edge in innovative ways to some of the world’s pressing issues.

The title of this book is constructed around two main themesthat have a symbiotic relationship � those of the KnowledgeEntrepreneur and High Diversity Groups. High Diversity Groupsis the concept I have developed to indicate groups that not onlyhave high degrees of diversity but also have well-developed andspecialised cultures that mine diversity for creativity and subse-quent innovation. The skills needed to operate effectively in HighDiversity Groups are represented in the Knowledge EntrepreneurToolkit presented in this book, and when mastered, are enactedthrough the role of the Knowledge Entrepreneur. At the heart ofthe argument in this book is a proposition that those working inuniversities, particularly academics, need to develop their intra-and inter-personal skills to the same level as their discipline-basedknowledge skills, if they are to more effectively work with theircolleagues and impact the societies they serve. High DiversityGroup cultures will stand in contrast to discipline-based cultures,requiring processes that will most likely challenge conventionallyheld notions of best group practice. The focus throughout thebook is on practical (rather than theoretical) discussions aroundboth of these themes. Do not expect a traditional academic bookhere. It is written as a practical guide, not a theoretical book.I am sharing what I know is effective in developing the type ofskills and cultures to which I refer.

The ideas in this book come from many sources. Many are aresult of my training and work as a teacher; Department ofEducation Consultant in two states of Australia; Station Leaderfor the Australian National Antarctic Research Expeditions;Operations Manager for Queensland Natural Resources andMines; Principal Project Officer, Leadership Development withthe Queensland Premiers Department; and, through deliveringcountless experiential leadership programmes to more than 1000participants over 17 years in private practice. Additionally,I undertook my master’s degree by research mid-career obtainingan M.Ed. with first class Honors and then a PhD by studying thesocial processes of organisational change. As a student, I had theopportunity to attend local, national and international confer-ences. Moreover, I was exposed to university cultures as a

xiv PREFACE

mature-aged adult and as someone with a keen interest in organi-sational cultures and change processes.

However, there are many other experiences and sources ofinfluence that have informed this book. I am fortunate that mylife partner, Dr Gayle Jennings, has been a career academic andprovided me the opportunity to vicariously experience an aca-demic career. To Gayle, I will always be grateful, not only forencouraging and guiding me through my research degrees butalso for the opportunities to understand many viewpoints aboutuniversities and to accompany her to national and internationalconferences and other university-related functions where Ibecame increasingly fascinated by the cultures of universities.Gayle epitomises the professional and ethical academic andremains a source of wisdom to this day.

Up until 2010, the majority of my consulting work had beenin government departments, not for profit organisations and pri-vate companies. And in this work, I was privileged to work withmy business partner, Tony Wheeler. Tony is a highly experiencedand talented group facilitator from whom I learnt much over theyears. Tony introduced me to a number of the models and pro-cesses that are described within. Together, we refined the pro-cesses through co-facilitating many experiential leadershipprogrammes over a period of 10 or more years. To you, Tony,I will always be grateful for your generosity in sharing yourknowledge.

In 2010, I was invited to do work at the University ofWestern Australia (UWA) by an internal organisation consultantwho had experienced my work elsewhere. This person was ReeJordan, who has since left UWA and is undertaking research forher PhD at the University of Queensland. Ree now works withme as a part-time consultant and has an in-depth understandingof university cultures and the processes necessary for experien-tially based developmental programmes. I am always grateful toRee for her insight, her ability to ‘read the room’ and her uniquetalent in preparing groups to participate in programmes.

UWA has undoubtedly been a primary source of the inspira-tion for this book and it is there that I refined many of the modelsand processes offered throughout this book. It would thereforebe remiss of me to not only acknowledge UWA generally for thevaluable experiences and insights that inform this book but alsoacknowledge some of the key people who have trusted me to rundevelopment programmes that might be considered somewhat‘risky’ or ‘edgy’ by those who are more risk-averse. In particular,

Preface xv

I wish to acknowledge (in the order they engaged me for specificprojects) Professor Shelda Debowski, Director of Organisationaland Staff Development; Professor John Dell, the Dean ofEngineering, Computing and Mathematics; Ms Paula Langley,Engineering Faculty Manager; Professor Tony O’Donnell, Deanof Science; Ms Christine Richardson, Science Faculty Manager;Professor Alex Cameron, Deputy Vice Chancellor Education;and, Professor Matthew Tonts, Dean of the Faculty of Arts,Business, Law and Education. I am especially appreciative of thetime generously given to me by Professor John Dell and ChristineRichardson in the early stages of this book. A sincere thanks toyou all for showing faith in me and the processes employed andfor the leadership you all displayed by modelling the learningbehaviours so necessary to make the processes suggested in thisbook a success. Of course, a huge thanks to the many UWA peo-ple who participated in these initiatives, from whom I have learntso much and hold in very high esteem. I think there are severalhundred of you now across UWA and I collectively recognise yourather than individually name you.

Finally, as mentioned earlier, this book is practically focusedand aims to provide a framework for universities to enhance thealready great teaching, research and other activities that theyundertake in our societies. Although I stated that it was not suf-fice to goad universities to take more proactive leadership roles ata time where there is clearly a void of best knowledge informingpolitics, I must state that I don’t recoil from such provocationtotally. It is just that to play such a role would, in my opinion, bea step too far at this point without taking the necessary time tobuild the skills and cultures to be successful.

The Knowledge Entrepreneur role and the potential for HighDiversity Groups to develop truly innovative solutions to thechallenges facing universities and to the major issues facing ourworld provides a powerful strategy for universities to evolve ininnovative ways and lead beyond their current boundaries ofinfluence.

Ross RynehartMount Beauty, Victoria, Australia

xvi PREFACE

CHAPTER

1 Introduction

The world is facing a knowledge crisis; a crisis born ofunsustainable exploitation of our natural systems, ourinsatiable appetites for consumption and inequalities

between peoples. It is simultaneously an ecological, technological,financial, social, cultural and political crisis that begs for newknowledge, policies and advocacies to swiftly and responsivelygenerate solutions.

While the last century of science and technology gifted us withexpectations of lifestyles that were unimaginable before the begin-ning of the 1900s, these lifestyles were predicated on unsustain-able systems and structures. The rapid adoption of such lifestyleswas initially a first-world phenomenon. Now, huge populationsfrom developing countries are not unreasonably rushing to availthemselves of those lifestyles and technologies. This unprece-dented demand consumes huge amounts of resources and now theworld is struggling to adapt to the combined effects of unsustain-able resource consumption, rapid technological development,increasing consumer expectations, constant population growth,health as well as education issues and the disparity between thosewho have and those who have not.

New styles of leadership are needed if we are to create inno-vative solutions for sustainable futures. Yet, it is unlikely that thesame thinking that created both world and knowledge crises willyield the sustainable solutions we need � at least not at the ratewe need to create them. We urgently need different leadershipthat is unleashed from the constraints of self-interest, political or

1

discipline boundaries and that can rapidly yield new knowledgethat will seed sustainability for future generations. In search ofsustainable futures, we need to engage in social processes thatcreate new knowledge by turning our minds to think differentlyand collaboratively before we create irreversible damage to ourenvironment and the world’s social fabric � a challenge surelyworthy of universities whose general remit is to share, apply andcreate new knowledge towards sustainability. The question is:Are universities sufficiently prepared and equipped with the rightskills and group cultures to meet this challenge?

It is my contention that mostly they are not, hence the genesisof this book. Its sub-title, The Knowledge Entrepreneur and HighDiversity Groups in Universities, places a spotlight on theKnowledge Entrepreneur (KE) role and the formation of HighDiversity Groups (HDGs). There is an important symbiotic rela-tionship between these two concepts. HDGs require actors whoare skilled in the KE role if they are to realise their potential andKEs need the unique culture of HDGs to optimise the impact oftheir role. At this time in history, there is a critical need for bothKEs and HDGs within universities. As important institutions insociety, universities not only are well placed but are expected tobe major players in addressing the contemporary issues facingthe world. Yet, most universities are struggling to change theirlong guarded cultures and subsequently deal themselves into for-ums of influence. We live in a world where emerging phenomenasuch as alternative facts and fake news are having a greater impacton shaping important decisions than is reputable knowledge thatis the key business of universities. Compounding this situation,universities are often seen as being sluggish institutions that con-duct their business within silos and hold themselves aloof frommainstream society.

If universities aspire to have greater impact on the majorissues facing the world today, they will need to critically examinefirst, the long-held assumptions underpinning their current cul-tures and practices; and second, the images of universities held bybroader society. As a starting point, this book proposes boostinguniversity performance through two key strategies. The firstrelates to developing competence in playing the KE role. Thesecond is the establishment of HDGs. If the current situation foruniversities is to change, then the KE role has the potential toplay a key role in empowering academics, in fact all actors withinuniversities, to contribute beyond their traditional disciplinaryboundaries and beyond the boundaries imposed by their current

2 BOOSTING IMPACT AND INNOVATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION

skill levels and prevailing group cultures. And importantly, HDGsprovide the structure and culture for KEs to perform, affordingpotential for creativity and innovation if universities are suffi-ciently courageous to develop them and if HDG actors are willingto commit to developing mastery of the KE role.

I argue universities need skilled KEs, who can work withothers to unleash knowledge from bounded thinking and applyit in innovative ways to two major challenges, one internallyfocused and the other externally focused. These challenges are:

1. To evolve university cultures to more effectively deliver theirproducts and services to the societies they serve

2. To impact more effectively on the important and intransientproblems facing our world

In the remainder of this chapter, I will introduce the conceptsof the KE and HDGs and discuss a number of issues thatare pertinent to the development of the KE and HDGs in univer-sities. Both these key concepts will be discussed in more depth inParts 1 and 2, respectively.

The Knowledge EntrepreneurThe word ‘entrepreneur’ is most commonly used to describe aperson who takes a risk in starting a business with the view tomaking a profit. It is also common to see the title of ‘social entre-preneur’ used to describe a person who establishes an enterprisewith the aim of solving social problems or effecting social change.In this book, I use the title of ‘knowledge entrepreneur’ todescribe a person who seeks to solve problems and effect changeby creating new knowledge from diverse knowledge. I define theknowledge entrepreneur as follows:

Knowledge Entrepreneur: someone who skillfully subjectstheir knowledge regarding important problems to diversity-rich,collaborative processes that aim to produce creative insights, newknowledge and innovations.

The KE is a role that requires mastery (i.e. knowledge andapplication) of skills in four important areas � self-awareness,self-management, social awareness and relationship management.I wish to stress that there is a huge difference between being‘aware’ and demonstrating any degree of competency, let alonemastery, in such skills! Lack of competence in these skills results

Introduction 3

in groups with diminished performance, typically through conflictor placative compromise.

The KE role is one that stands in contrast to the roles mostcommonly enacted in universities. Whether you are an academicor one of the many professional and support staff in a university,you are part of a broad team needed to deliver on the key func-tions of universities � teaching, research and ‘service’. Given thatI am advocating that the KE role is equally relevant to all actorswho work in universities, I have adopted the convention of refer-ring to university employees as actors throughout this book,making specific distinctions where appropriate.

All actors within universities play a range of roles duringtheir daily work. The KE role, if mastered and applied to thework of HDGs, has the potential to unleash creativity that isotherwise bounded by structures, discipline knowledge and tradi-tions. I argue the need for actors to demonstrate an additionalskill set to those most commonly demonstrated in universities,and that skill set is enacted through the KE role. The KE roleenhances the personal performance of academic, professional andsupport staff alike and contributes to boosting the performanceof the groups within which they work. The role of KEs and therelated skill set that is founded on the KE Toolkit is fullyexplained later in Part 1.

High Diversity GroupsHDGs are specific types of groups where highly diverse perspec-tives inform discourse aimed at generating new ideas regardingsolutions to issues of substance. The potential of HDGs to gener-ate creative ideas is based on a belief that diversity-informeddiscourse is a rich source of new ideas and knowledge that canemerge if the group culture is optimal for that purpose (Paulus &Nijstad, 2003). To generate such an optimal group culture, HDGactors need to demonstrate a sophisticated skill set and engagegroup processes, rarely seen within universities.

As already mentioned, in Part 1, the Knowledge EntrepreneurToolkit (KE Toolkit) that can be used to develop such a skill set isintroduced. In Part 2, HDGs will be discussed in detail along withthe Process Playlist that provides HDGs with a practical andeffective set of processes that are well suited to achieve the aimsof HDGs. When competently used together, these skills and


processes create an optimum group culture for creative ideas andknowledge to emerge from HDGs.

Again, it is important to emphasise that illuminating issuesfrom multiple and diverse perspectives have the potential tocreate insights in to complex issues that defy resolution from sin-gular perspectives. However, to realise such potential is complexwork that requires actors not only to contribute knowledge fromtheir own viewpoints but to also understand and synthesise themultiple, diverse perspectives of others whilst embracing newideas that may arise. HDGs’ cultures, built on the KE toolkit andthe Process Playlist, create the optimal culture for this work andboost group performance.

The Relationship between the KE Roleand HDGsIrrespective of how clever a facilitator or leader may be, they canonly provide the opportunities for individual actors to combinethe diversity they bring to a group � they cannot govern theinternal awareness processes of actors that in turn govern thediscursive gestures actors make. In such situations, the KE iscondemned to apply their skills to the role of traditional groupleader or facilitator working hard to arrive at a satisfactoryoutcome, yet always restricted by the actors’ skill levels. And it isrelatively ‘pot luck’ as to the skills with which you will have towork. I am sure you have all experienced the effect of one or moregroup members who lack self-awareness, self-management, socialawareness and/or relationship management skills and the perfor-mance limiting effect this can have on a group. Additionally,I would suggest that such lack of sophistication is not alwaysconfined to the junior ranks either!

HDGs work best when they have a collaborative and distrib-uted leadership culture. That is, all actors of HDGs should becompetent and willing to facilitate and lead in HDGs, employingthe KE role to do so. With regard to that, Figure 1 demonstratesthe following:

• Examples of group cultures that may exist in universities• The relationship between Diversity and HDG Culture• The types of roles valued and needed to be successful withinthose groups.

Introduction 5

Group DiversityLowHigh

HD

G C

ultu

reB

asic

Soph

isti

cate

d

Per

form

ance

-Boo

sted

HD

Gs

Key

rol

e: K

now

ledg

e E

ntre

pren

eurs

Focu

sed

on c

reat

ive

outc

omes

th

roug

h di

scur

sive

pro

cess

es

‘Mes

sy b

ut c

omfo

rtab

le’

‘Em

erge

nce’

fro

m ‘

conv

erge

nce’

H

igh

leve

ls o

f re

spec

t for

div

ersi

ty

Hig

h va

lue

on ‘

cons

truc

tive

conf

lict’

Uns

tabl

e, P

erfo

rman

ce-R

estr

icte

d H

DG

s

Key

rol

e: K

now

ledg

e E

xper

t

Con

flic

t or

conf

lict-

aver

sePo

tent

ial c

ompr

omis

ed b

y la

ck o

f H

DG

cul

ture

K

now

ledg

e is

a p

rote

cted

‘tu

rf’

Low

-lev

el c

olla

bora

tion

Polit

ical

beh

avio

ur e

vide

nt

Stab

le, P

rodu

ctiv

e G

roup

s

Key

Rol

e: R

elia

ble,

Pre

dict

able

Per

form

er

Dup

licat

ion

of k

now

ledg

e R

eplic

atio

n of

out

puts

C

lose

d sy

stem

G

roup

thin

k St

able

cul

ture

Stab

le, P

erfo

rman

ce-R

estr

icte

dG

roup

s

Key

Rol

e: V

alue

d C

olle

ague

Con

serv

ativ

e cu

lture

Po

tent

ial c

ompr

omis

ed b

y la

ck

of d

iver

sity

B

ored

om

Incr

emen

tal,

cons

ulta

tive

chan

ge

• • • • •

• • • • •

• • • •

• • • • •

Figure

1.Bo

ostingGrou

pPerfo

rmance

byIncreasing

Diversity

andDe

veloping

aHD

GCu

lture.


As diversity (in its many forms) increases within a group, theskills required by a KE also increase. In practice, in HDGs, a KEwill need to:

• maintain awareness of their own internal process and howthey might be acting as boundaries for thought or how thesemight be influencing their behaviours

• move from being aware of their internal processes toconsciously managing thoughts, feelings and behaviours

• understand the social dynamics within a HDG, their role inthat dynamic and be able the recognise the political processesas they are formed and what opportunities they present

• identify creative insights and ideas as they emerge fromdiscourse and act on them

• build and maintain ‘effective’ relationships with other actorsin a HDG, irrespective of the degree of ‘difference’ stemmingfor different disciplinary cultures or personalities.

I acknowledge that readers of this book will have variedexperiences of working in diverse groups and may be thinkingthat I am making too much of the importance of an additional skillset needed by actors to be successful in HDGs. However, I obvi-ously don’t think this to be the case and caution should be takento check what frames of reference you might be using to reachsuch judgements. For example, there is a tendency to benchmarkusing other groups within and between universities and frankly, interms of skill levels and cultural practices, this can result in settingthe bar rather low. However, I do acknowledge that most actorswill not be starting from a zero base in terms of skill sets and thattheir experience of working with diversity will vary enormously.Therefore, there is unlikely to be a common starting point in devel-oping the KE role amongst those volunteering to join a HDG. Thisdoes provide logistical challenges in regard to development of theKE role that are thoroughly addressed in Part 2.

Having briefly introduced the two central concepts in thisbook, the remainder of this chapter will address a number of keyissues that need to be considered when developing the KE roleand establishing HDGs within universities. They are:

• The need for change in university cultures• The issue of intelligence• Academic and professional cultures within universities• High diversity versus High diversity groups

Introduction 7

• Complexity, diversity and discourse• Stacey’s complex responsive processes• Individual and group mind• Knowledge entrepreneurs and complex responsive processes• High diversity leadership groups• High diversity research groups• Developing KEs � Breaking the training mould.

The Need for Change in UniversityCulturesIn universities, knowledge is often bounded within disciplines,schools, faculties, institutes, research centres and other similarstructures. Yes, I do acknowledge that these structures serve uswell with great research and teaching emanating from them. Yet,they are a double-edged sword � at once serving us well at thesame time as consuming huge amounts of resources in an endlessprocess that replicates and clones discipline knowledge andcultures. Reflect for a while on the vast quantities of low impactresearch activity being conducted around the world; the amountof time consumed writing articles for journals that are read byfew and that have virtually no impact beyond their discipline; theamount of time and resources spent attending discipline-basedconferences designed to establish and maintain the status of‘keepers of the discipline’. Academia has captured itself within aweb of its own making. A web spun by disciplines that establishjournals as boundary keepers and arbiters of reputations.

Additionally, universities are complicit in constructing andperpetuating league tables where there is room for only a fewwinners. This is a web where, almost universally, universitiesaspire to excellence only to commit to endless and unimaginativebenchmarking, thereby slavishly committing to chase those fewuniversities that set the bar.

Trapped in this web are academics who are rewarded forbeing team players in the game and who have been trained toalign their efforts to the ‘game’. The game is basically to complyin order to remain on the pay roll. What we are seeing is anexample of mass cognitive obedience that creates boundaries tocreativity and innovation.

I have been around universities long enough to know thereis significant truth in what I say to justify these provocations.


And yes, I acknowledge that there will be some exampleswhere universities run contrary to the scenario outlined above.However, the cultures of bounded systems are so well establishedin universities around the world that most would reflect thescenario outlined above, at least to some degree. Yet, at the sametime, they boldly espouse their uniqueness, their quest for excel-lence and innovation in an attempt to differentiate themselvesamongst a surprisingly homogeneous pack.

This book is for academics and professionals who work inuniversities and more generally for universities that aspire to adaptcreatively to the rapidly evolving world. It is for those who believethat new cultures and skills, in addition to those that currently typ-ify universities, are needed if these aspirations are to be realised.This book primarily focuses on providing a practical toolkit toguide academics, and others working in universities, in the devel-opment of the KE role and in the development of HDGs.

The Issue of IntelligenceUniversities place high value on traditional IQ, whereas the KErole builds its skill set on a foundation built around the conceptsof self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and rela-tionship management. These concepts are often associated withemotional and social intelligence. The emotional and social intel-ligence appropriate for the KE role is developed through the fourinterdependent components of self-awareness, self-management,social awareness and relationship management. High-level skillsin these areas are essential to effectively work with others whenexploring high levels of diversity. This enables a more compre-hensively intelligent exploration of spaces between the bound-aries of individual thinking and disciplines. However, the skills toundertake this type of work are usually underestimated by uni-versities, often by assuming a correlation between high IQ and acorrespondingly high emotional and social intelligence. There isno evidence that this is the case. As a result of this assumption, Ioften see groups where the actors are willing to deal construc-tively with high degrees of diversity, but lack the necessary skillsto do so effectively. As already mentioned, a common outcome iseither conflict or placative compromise that works to protect per-sonal interests and stifle the potential for HDGs to produce newknowledge and innovations.

Introduction 9

The KE role is a sophisticated one that is urgently needed, notonly to assist universities to adapt to a changing world but foractors within universities to contribute to sustainable worldfutures.

Academic and Professional Cultureswithin UniversitiesEarlier in this chapter, I identified two main foci for the KE roleand HDGs � those of renewing universities cultures and that ofimpacting on major world issues. Notwithstanding, I wish to iden-tify a third important application for the KE role in universitiesthat will not be explicitly dealt with in more detail during thisbook, yet is of sufficient importance to discuss here, albeit briefly.

Often, academics work in groups that consist of academics,managers and other professionals. Such groups are constitutedbecause participants contribute different expertise and perspec-tives to issues. Yet, ongoing debates continue regarding the statusof academic, managerial and professional perspectives of knowl-edge within universities. I adopt the view that universities haveunique cultures that do not and should not necessarily mirrorcultures in business nor government or anywhere else in society.They are unique institutions within society and whilst they alsoneed to perform management, leadership and other professionalfunctions, the way in which these functions are performed will beuniquely influenced by the competing needs of the corporatebusiness of the university and the academic business (teaching,research and service) of the university. I believe that managementand academia cultures should be held in healthy tension and not,as some would suggest, compete for dominance. Hence, the KErole is immediately and constantly applicable if this tension is tobe held in a respectful and useful way whenever groups need tocreate innovative solutions to issues that have relevant academicand professional viewpoints.

High Diversity versus High DiversityGroups (HDGs)I have already aligned the KE role with groups that have highdiversity and pointed out that I believe that diversity is central in


the creation of new knowledge and subsequent innovation.Additionally, I have acknowledged that groups with high diver-sity currently exist within universities. Diversity is always presentin groups. However, I am suggesting that the role of KE is partic-ularly suited for groups with high levels of diversity and specifi-cally for groups where high diversity is strategically organisedrather than the diversity that is naturally present in all groups.

I do not propose a strict definition or objective measure for‘high-diversity’ as I do not see that would be particularly useful.Instead, it is easy to compare groups using a continuum thatranges from homogeneous to those in which diversity has beenstrategically assembled to create a highly heterogeneous group.As mentioned previously, some degree of diversity will always bepresent in groups given that diversity can originate from age,gender, experiences, race, personality, etc. However, in HDGs, inaddition to such diversity that is always present to some degreein groups, multidisciplinary (both academic and professional)diversity is strategically assembled, often including viewpointsnot immediately or normally considered to have relevance to theissue. For example, we could reasonably expect that a groupfrom within, for example, a School of Mechanical Engineering,would be more homogeneous when compared with a groupconsisting of representatives from schools of engineering, biology,economics, politics, fine arts, human resources and finance depart-ments. To create further diversity, we could include students,industry, government and community actors. The difference isthat the latter group has been assembled to purposefully increasediversity. And along with the profession-specific knowledge, theywill bring further diversity such as language and cultural normsfrom their ‘home’ cultures.

The example above is not to suggest assembling diverse view-points just for the sake of creating extreme diversity � althoughthis could be warranted in some cases. Rather, I am only usingthat example to compare obviously homogeneous groups withthose that are obviously diversity rich. These are the HDGs thatwill be discussed in Part 2.

I propose that it is absolutely essential for groups with highdiversity,HDGs, to ensure that their actors are competent in the KErole. However, the role of KE is arguably useful in all groups acrossa university as a KE has the potential to markedly improve the qual-ity of interactions between actors of any group and boost perfor-mance. In HDGs, actors will bring diversity stemming not onlyfrom disparate disciplines but also from individual personalities,

Introduction 11

experiences, beliefs and values. The point being that the diversitybrought to HDGs is more complex than disciplinary (academic orprofessional) diversity alone, and because of this, a unique andspecialised skill set is needed to pursue potential new knowledgefrom the diversity present. Without the KE role in their toolkit,actors rely on their current intra- and inter-personal skill sets thatare often not as well developed as their discipline skill sets. The KEToolkit not only provides a practical framework for skill develop-ment but also sets a standard for skills that are needed to work effec-tively in HDGs. Again, I stress that HDGs cannot be successfulwithout actors demonstrating a high level of competence in intra-and inter-personal skills, such as those proposed in the KE Toolkit.

Complexity, Diversity and DiscourseAs already stated, the role of KE is especially designed for use inHDGs that intentionally explore diversity in search of creativityand new knowledge. This exploration is undertaken throughdiscursive processes. That is, when actors of a HDG enter intodialogue around a challenge, problem or issue, they are expectedto offer their unique perspective/s at the same time as seeking tounderstand those of others, allowing that understanding to influ-ence their own thinking. In response, they may offer thoughtsthat have arisen reflexively. And thus, the discursive processproceeds. When broken down into its parts, it is a complexprocess, one that Stacey (2000, 2001) has called complex respon-sive processes (CRPs).

The concept or theory of CRPs is built from Stacey’s interestin complexity theory, sociology and group analysis. It is a theorythat is most commonly linked to the way in which complexitytheory is used to explain phenomenon in the natural world suchas the self-organisation of flocking birds, herds of wild animalsor weather patterns. According to complexity theory, complexadaptive systems are systems that organise themselves in waysthat cannot be understood through studying their individual partsor the relationships between parts of the system. Complex adap-tive systems are not linear, deterministic systems as understoodthrough Newtonian thinking. Rather, they are referred to as beingpost-Newtonian, where the relationships between the elements ofthese systems are too complex to be understood and change inunpredictable ways. Stacey’s theory of CRPs, whilst having somesimilarities to complexity theory (such as unpredictability and


emergence of novelty), focuses specifically on the way in whichthought and communication form patterns of meaning betweenactors during a group conversation.

As the case for the importance of the KE role in universitiesis built on assumptions from complexity theory generally, andStacey’s complex responsive process specifically, it is critical tohave a basic understanding of the theory of CRPs to grasp therelevance of the KE role and the KE toolkit that is described inPart 1. Therefore, the key features of CRPs are overviewed toallow you, the readers, to understand my assumptions regardingthe importance of the KE role in universities. I do not, however,intend to provide a thorough coverage of Stacey’s theory in thisbook, as it would unnecessarily duplicate the many publicationsby Stacey and others, who explain the theory. As with other the-ories or models introduced in this book, I encourage readers toread further as their interests and curiosity may direct. However,the following explanation is offered as my interpretation ofCRPs, as much to provide a summary of the theory as to disclosehow I interpret the ideas surrounding CRPs. I have tried to usesimple language to explain aspects of CRPs rather than the exactlanguage used by Stacey, which is very informative, but notappropriate for the condensed and practical style of this book.

Stacey’s Complex ResponsiveProcesses (CRPs)Group conversations can take many forms. At the risk of over-simplifying, in an attempt to differentiate conversational patternsand also to indicate the type of skills needed by a KE andthe HDG cultures that best support the emergence of newknowledge, three conversational patterns are identified that canbe explained by CRPs. These three types of conversational pat-terns are:

1. The normalising or stabilising pattern where the conversa-tional theme is reinforced by each speaker and comes to beaccepted generally by the group. In this type of conversation,there is little challenge to the prevailing theme and speakersoffer their knowledge and opinions to support it. Groupswho demonstrate this pattern can be seen as having a rela-tively high degree of homogeneity.

Introduction 13

2. The logically evolving pattern wherein the conversationaltheme is slowly modified as speakers offer knowledge andopinions that offer some points of difference but do not standin total contrast to the prevailing conversational theme. Thetheme evolves logically and slowly through a process of occa-sionally explicit, but often tacit agreement between groupactors.

3. The rapid emergence pattern where contrasting perspectiveslead to a sudden shift in the prevailing conversational theme.A new idea is first conceptualised, then articulated by agroup member and subsequently adapted and built on by theother actors. This emergence of new knowledge is preciselywhat we are attempting to encourage when we establishHDGs in universities. We are encouraging group actors withdiverse perspectives to ‘creatively mix’ their ideas throughintelligent and emotionally intelligent discourse in the hopeof emergent ideas and new knowledge.

The focus of the KE role in universities is on the rapid emer-gence pattern of conversation. However, the participation in andfacilitation of such conversations is tricky. As already mentioned,there is a high potential for conflict and placative compromise(=lost opportunity) if the skill level of the actors is low. CRPstheory suggests that to maximise the chances of emergence ofnew ideas, a group will need actors who are willing to:

1. Share their diversity. This diversity may emanate from differ-ences in disciplinary knowledge, personalities, values andbeliefs or life experiences. Bringing together groups with theright amounts of diversity is one challenge � another is tohave the actors share that diversity. Trust is critical for thisto happen.

2. Openly engage. Group actors need to be open and engage withother actors. That is, group actors must be willing to maketheir diversity accessible to others at the same time as beingopen to considering the diverse views of others. This requiresactors to not only share their perspectives but simultaneouslycompare and contrast the views of others to their own.

3. Think creatively. Group actors first need to understand thesource of their rigid thinking patterns and then learn to relaxit and allow for new and unknown thoughts to emerge.In this way, actors can learn to use diversity to allow fornovel associations of knowledge to form.


Individual and Group MindIt will be clear by now that the focus is on both individuals andthe group when talking about ideas held simultaneously by indi-viduals and the group. To help explain this, CRPs theory uses theconcept of mind, suggesting that the mind is where individualsform representations of group conversation. Whilst working withgroups, I find that actors have little trouble accepting this conceptof mind when referring to individuals. However, they often findthe concept of a group mind a little harder to accept. Yet theindividual mind is not a physical organ, unless you think of themind as being exactly the same as the brain. Mostly actors thinkof the mind as being a combination of brain function and feel-ings, values and beliefs. Irrespective of how you conceive of theconcept of individual mind, in CRPs theory, the mind refers tothe representations formed through the conversational process,which Stacey points out is dependent on a process of usinglanguage symbols to convey meaning. Individual minds and thegroup mind are shaped simultaneously by each other, as long aswe are engaged and open during the conversation. That is, whenone person speaks, other group members’ minds will be influ-enced in some way at the same time as influencing the groupmind, that is, the representation of the conversation held incommon and collectively by the group.

This is a particularly unique human process and capacitythat is reliant on our use of a complex language to communicate.Depending on the type of conversational pattern (see thethree types outlined previously), individual and group minds willremain stable, evolve or, perhaps, suddenly change in a surprisingway if a new representation emerges in an individual’s mind andthey articulate that representation in a way that influences thegroup mind. According to CRPs theory, group discourse is areflexive process, where both individual and group minds aresimultaneously shaping, and being shaped by each other.

Diversity is critical in HDGs if the potential for emergence ofnew knowledge is to be maximised. It can be easily seen that ifwe assemble a relatively homogeneous group, there would bemore probability of a normalising conversational pattern than ina HDG. However, the right amount of diversity is also importantfor, if the diversity is too great, participants will have difficultyunderstanding each other. For example, I have seen this in somegroups within universities when working with actors from

Introduction 15

disparate faculties. On one occasion, I watched as an architectspoke very intelligently about a proposal for a built environmentwithin a university. Whilst intelligent and passionate, it was fartoo conceptual, and the language used was specialised and‘foreign’ to other group actors, so much so that some of thescientists in the group were completely unable to understandwhat the message was. I am not knocking scientists or architectshere � just illustrating how our diverse life histories can makecommunication difficult. Of course, over time, had the indivi-duals chose to stay engaged, they might have built understandingand perhaps new ideas may have arisen as a result. Unfortunately,in this instance, this was not the case. The point is CRPs needdiversity but that diversity needs to be shared in a way that otherscan engage with it.

In this short overview of CRPs theory, I hope to havehighlighted the importance for KEs to focus on the finer processesof conversations within HDGs and to have alerted you to thetype of skill set needed to master the KE role.

Knowledge Entrepreneurs and ComplexResponsive ProcessesOf the three types of conversational patterns outlined earlier, Ihave already suggested that the aim is to produce the third typein HDGs � that of the rapid emergence pattern. To be clear here,this pattern does not suggest that the conversation is necessarily arapid one but refers to the rate at which a new thought emergesin an individual’s mind and is adopted into the group mind. Thetiming of such emergence is unpredictable. It might occur at anytime in a discourse; therefore, HDGs need to be prepared tospend time engaged in exploring diversity without a promise ofnew knowledge necessarily emerging. However, to maximise thepotential for this to happen, group actors need to share their per-spectives, engage openly and think creatively. To do this wellrequires actors with well-developed personal and interpersonalskills. This is the role of the KE. In Part 1, I introduce theKnowledge Entrepreneur Toolkit � a practical guide to develop-ing these skills.

It is important not to underestimate the skills needed to playthis role well. The KE Toolkit introduces a set of models for eachof the four components of self-awareness, self-management,


social awareness and relationship management. These modelsdraw from an eclectic range of disciplines and practice and haveall been proven effective over a long period in providing practicalguidance in developing the skills of the KE role. It is a practicaltoolkit that acknowledges universities are busy places and time isa premium resource. For this reason, Part 2 outlines processes todevelop the KE role in HDGs that involve intensive experientialtraining and applied action learning. These processes have provenmost successful in transferring awareness into workplace prac-tice. They aim at achieving mastery of the KE role as opposed toless sophisticated processes that employ largely didactic training,and that are aimed primarily at raising awareness, rather than atmastery of the skills. To reiterate, the KE role is essential ifHDGs are to create new ideas that lead to innovation. When allthe actors of a group commit to mastering the KE role, they canexpect to enjoy unprecedented levels of trust, respect and robust-ness in their group processes.

The KE role, or more specifically the KE Toolkit, is the focusof Part 1. In Part 2, we will look at applying the KE to two uni-versity environments:

1. High diversity leadership groups2. High diversity research groups

I see these two environments as offering major and immedi-ate opportunities to develop and deploy the role of the KE,although I want to stress, however, that the role of KE can haveconsiderable application and impact in other forums beyondthese two environments. Each of these environments will bebriefly discussed below; however, they will be discussed in moredetail in Part 2, which focuses specifically on HDGs.

High Diversity Leadership Groups(HDLGs)Leadership groups already exist in name in many functional sitesthroughout universities (e.g. schools, faculties, research centres,business units senior governance). Commonly, these groups per-form both management and leadership functions and from expe-rience, they do an excellent job of blurring these two functions!Be under no illusion, management and leadership are two distinct

Introduction 17

functions that require very different skill sets, especially if univer-sities are to adapt to the challenges they face with regard tochanging client and community expectations of them. Now,more than any other time in the history of universities, leadershipgroups (as compared to individual leaders) are expected to developrelevant, innovative and exciting visions for their futures. Yet, littleconsideration is given to cultures and skill sets needed to do thiswork in groups, upon which the futures of universities depend.

A group of actors, often in the same meeting, commonly per-form management and leadership functions, yet they rarely differ-entiate between when they are specifically doing management ordoing leadership. However, it is well documented that the skillsrequired to do management are very different from the skillsrequired to do leadership. Management is most usually describedas a rational activity. It is concerned with resource allocationdirected towards achieving specific outcomes, the constant evalu-ation of measurable or observable effects of that allocation andthe modification of the resource allocation to ensure the desiredoutcomes are achieved. Management is accompanied by a rangeof measures designed to achieve focused effort towards achievingthe desired outcomes through the use of measures such as rewardsystems. It is mostly based on ‘cause and effect’ or Newtonianthinking, with managers being accountable to the organisationfor the efficient and effective use of resources.

On the other hand, leadership is concerned with the futuredirection of the organisation and as there are many possiblefutures and given that the future cannot be ‘known’, it is a muchless rational activity � especially if a vision of the future has fewprecedents to act as a model or template. Leadership involves acurious combination of courage, imagination, high-level intelli-gences, power and politics and sometimes charisma. Usingknowledge of the past and present, a leadership group mustdecide if the future vision for the organisation should remain sim-ilar to its current state (i.e. stable), whether some aspects of itsoperations should be changed (i.e. incremental change) or some-times if major change is needed (i.e. transformational change).Irrespective of the scale of change, leadership not only requiresvisioning of the future by the leadership group but it must alsosomehow convince the broader organisation to adopt that visionand agree to realigning its resources towards achieving it. It ofteninvolves change.

HDLGs are leadership groups that are strategically assem-bled to ensure that high degrees of diversity are present. They


seek innovation and their underlying rationale is that the poten-tial for new knowledge, insights and innovation is maximised ifhigh degrees of diversity are intelligently held in tension by theenactment of the KE role. However, often leadership groupsare assembled on a representative basis, assuming that thoserepresenting different interests will ensure all interests will berepresented. This is fine for management groups; however, ifleadership is looking for innovative solutions, then there are twoquestions that arise:

1. Is the diversity of the appropriate type that is needed toexamine difficult issues and produce innovative responses?

2. Do those present have the skills to do more than advocateand protect the interests they represent?

Assuming that innovation (in the form of exciting visions ofthe future) is a key goal of HDLGs, then the diversity that is sovalued by these groups also presents a considerable challenge tothe group. Again, if not managed skilfully, the diversity can leadto conflict or placative compromise. Therefore, careful develop-mental planning is needed to nurture the group culture so neces-sary for KEs to perform.

The KE role, played skilfully, is essential if leadership groupsare to achieve anything more than to clone the organisation.However, leadership groups in universities commonly enact thesame cultural rituals they use to manage, and actors commonlydeploy the same skill set as they do for management. Makinga clear distinction between the activities of management andleadership is an important first step to effective group leadership.Developing competence in playing the KE role and then adoptingprocesses to showcase a HDLG’s potential will distinguish aninnovative HDLG from a group of senior actors going throughthe motions of leadership.

High Diversity Research Groups(HDRGs)There are significant calls for moving beyond the boundaries ofdisciplines to conduct research, and in fact, there are alreadymany examples where universities have committed significantresources to doing just that � creating research environments

Introduction 19

that transcend the boundaries of established disciplines. Mostly,such environments have arisen and become successful throughthe initiatives taken by inspired individuals from within universi-ties. These initiatives go by many names, yet what they have incommon are claims to conduct research away from the bound-aries of disciplines. In this book, I am suggesting that this type ofresearch is best achieved by groups, whom I refer to as HighDiversity Research Groups (HDRGs).

It is sufficient at this stage to note that HDRGs stand in con-trast to the more common disciplinary and multidisciplinaryresearch activities conducted within and between universities.HDRGs are research-focused HDGs that intentionally bringdiverse researchers and other perspectives together to intelligentlyexplore that diversity for new knowledge. Like leadership HDGs,HDRGs will have diversity represented by and from differingacademic discipline perspectives, real-life experience and person-alities, and consequently this presents challenges for communica-tion. This is especially so given that researchers will bring withthem assumptions from their disciplinary cultures, others fromlived experience and perhaps industry and agency perspectivesthat can vary remarkably, even to the point that the languageused by some actors will be ‘foreign’ to others.

I am not suggesting that discipline-based or multidisciplinaryresearch teams should be replaced by HDRGs or that they arebecoming irrelevant. Clearly this is not the case, and HDRGswill continue to be the exception rather than the rule for sometime to come. However, they are an important exception that areespecially relevant to research endeavours aimed at large-scale,complex, real-world problems that require diverse perspectivesbeing brought to a crucible in order to yield new perspectivesand innovative solutions to what are often referred to as being‘grand challenges’ or ‘wicked problems’.

As with leadership groups, HDRGs are often establishedwith the best of intentions, yet employ procedures and practicesfrom other types of research groups. Researchers enact the sameroles as they would in a disciplinary research group, failing toappreciate the skills needed to effectively work with such diver-sity in a non-discipline specific way. The KE role, based on theKE toolkit, is well suited to HDRGs and arguably essential ifHDRGs are to exploit the full potential that they offer.

Both of these environments are discussed further in Part 2.By identifying these two university environments, as before, I donot mean to suggest the KE role is limited only to those forums.


Whilst they provide obvious and immediate opportunities for theKE to add considerable value, universities would benefit moregenerally from actors enacting the skills of the KE in their dailyinteractions. If enacted more generally, the KE role would alsoresult in a significant change to the broader cultures of interac-tions in universities.

Developing KEs: Breaking the TrainingMouldIn Chapter 10, I outline the development processes that I havefound to be most effective in establishing HDG cultures andteaching actors to master the KE role. Building on Part 1 (wherethe role of KE is explained in detail) and Part 2 (where I discusstwo university environments for the KE), Chapter 10 specificallydetails practical approaches to the development of KEs andhigh-performance HDGs. These approaches are based on theprinciples of experiential, adult and action learning, as well asincorporate knowledge from a diverse range of disciplines. Mostimportantly, they have been developed and proven to be effectiveover many years. The most important point made in Chapter 10is that my approach to development stands in contrast to thosecommonly experienced in university sponsored organisationaldevelopment activities in four significant ways:

1. It is challenging: the KE role is a sophisticated one andour approach to developing competency requires that lear-ners expose themselves and take some learning risks. Thiscontrasts to relatively safe and theoretical approaches mostlyexperienced in universities.

2. It is built around the unique and practical KE Toolkit thathas been developed by thoughtful melding of a diverse rangeof theories and models. In contrast, it is more common fordevelopment activities to be based on a singular or non-integrated collection of theories or models.

3. The approach is aimed squarely at effective workplacedeployment of the KE role, developed through experientialand action learning whilst attaching an expectation that therole be demonstrated through behavioural competencies. Toachieve this, I advocate a longitudinal approach with multi-ple phases to ensure sustainability. This contrasts to the

Introduction 21

commonly experienced theoretical and ‘one-off’ trainingevents mostly employed in universities.

4. The approach to facilitation is unique and involves deep learn-ing facilitation that is very different from rational training.

Of course, there are implications of this approach to universi-ties. There are resource, expertise, commitment and risk implica-tions that must be considered carefully before committing to thisapproach. However, I believe that the role of KEs in universitiesis so important and offers to impact so significantly on universi-ties cultures and performance that its adoption into universities’development cultures is not only timely but also strategic.

The KE role can amplify the intellectual power of universitiesand their impact on real-world issues. It is a role that I believe isnot well developed by many actors working in universities andone that is not widely valued at present. Yet arguably, the needfor the role is greater than ever before. The challenge is for thoseworking in universities to critically examine the potential of KEsand HDGs and to resist the hubris so commonly deployed tostabilise organisational cultures.


boosting impact and innovation in higher education€¦ · processes 16 high diversity ... the four...

Documents